Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

Replies to This Discussion

If science were so unsuccessful, we wouldn't even be able to have this discussion over modern electronics. When you compare the knowledge and number of books produced by science, there's just no comparison to the few, dogmatic books produced by religion.

Sure, science is sometimes wrong. But there are so many (millions?) of things science gets right, and that some people just take for granted by not realizing all the thought and work that's gone into science.

And as far as "belief" goes, there is a difference. Religionists only care about what's in a few books, or what a few authority figures say about it. But in science, skepticism and dissent are encouraged, because competition of ideas and discovery of new knowledge are what makes science work, in the long run.

If we didn't have science, we'd still be living in the stone age, with all kinds of religions fighting each other about who's "right", or who has God on their side, probably for eternity. Scientists across the world (and probably across the universe) continuously improve their theories, and come to the same, correct conclusions, even if they never speak to each other because of differences in language or distance. It is rocket science, and it takes a lot more than one or two books and some preaching to make it work.

Gravity may be just a "theory", but it works the same everywhere, despite different religion's respect for each others' faith without evidence, and never willing to question or correct their ancient myths. Religionists always just think they're right, whether they can prove it or not, because that's the way it was supposedly written "perfectly" back before most people could even read. But science is not so arrogant, because it's willing to ask questions about reality, and find better and better (and "more correct") answers over time.

Please, carefully consider how far science has come in only (say) 300 years, and how little religion has changed in 3000 years. It's no wonder that religion regards science as a threat to blind, unquestionable and unchangeable faith.

I meant to ask... which religion do you think is right? You're only allowed to pick one, and then you're discouraged from changing your mind, right? In fact some people are even punished for questioning or changing their religious belief. Why? Because threat of punishment is the only way to make some people believe in myth.

I don't "believe" in science. I don't "know" much about scientific findings. What I do believe is the best way to discover new information seems to be a combination of the scientific method, peer review, and time. I don't believe science is the Holy Grail. Scientists get my admiration and respect just as doctors and other professionals do, but I retain the right to apply a healthy skepticism to any claim. At the end of the day, it comes down to trust, because I am never going to have the faculties or the resources to do the experiments myself. Who would you rather trust to provide an unbiased, accurate observation: a scientist, a preacher, the average Joe?

Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science? What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot?

2+2=4Mercury boils at 674.1°FOn the surface of the Earth, an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 newtons.

That's three items on a list that contains literally billions of other scientific discoveries which may be tested and either verified as true or falsified as incorrect.

Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology.

And you're basing this insulting thin-air stereotype about atheists on what?

Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe.

All I see is another crackpot-- you this time-- telling me what I believe instead of asking me.

But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong?

Many times. What scientist says science is never wrong? (That is the exclusive claim of religion.) The scientific method requires falsifiability, admits error when it occurs, and revises scientific views of nature as our understanding grows. This is a strength of the scientific method.

I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told?

Consider the accomplishments and discoveries of science in the last 40 years alone. Medical advances. Space age technology. Computers and the Internet. Nanotechnology. Go to any university database, do a general search, and hit the 'print' button. You could fill an aircraft hangar with the results.

That is not a question of belief. You may either accept or reject that science is the most successful method we have for understanding nature. You live in a world so absolutely teeming with the amazing products of the scientific method that such a rejection casts serious doubt on your honesty and even your sanity.

By the way, what are the major accomplishments and discoveries of religion in the last 40 years? Or the last 80 years? Or the last 200? Or the last 500?

I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

How does this apply to mathematics? For instance, I have not personally observed and interpreted the evidence that every number plus one always equals the next higher whole number all the way to infinity.

0+1 = 11+1 = 22+1 = 3...

But I have observed that arithmetic is logical and consistent in this way and I accept that this is true even without having observed all of the evidence. How do I know? It works. That conclusion is based on evidence, not faith. The same principle applies throughout empirical science and with scientific skepticism in general: if you test it, and it works, it's almost certainly true. So you are wrong again, G. Faith is not required here either.

0+1 = 1 (only because we define zero and one that way)1+1 = 2 (only because we define 'two' that way)2+1 = 3 (that's just an extension of the previous definitions)

Our math isn't an inherent part of nature - our interpretation of nature includes our math because it has to, to make it make sense to us. Our math just makes nature make more sense.

Which isn't to say there is no math in nature... hell, it's almost all math. Just not exactly our math. But we're getting better at it all the time. 1+1.9999repeating is exactly the same as 1+2 for as may digits as you want to check it for, but 2 of those terms are not the same...unless you realize that math, in this case, is description and not definition.

One thing that's always bound to get a rise out of some math folks is to point out the relationship of math to logic. Math is a subset of logic because all math is based on logic, but some logic isn't mathematical (example: some of the verbal fallacies such as appeal to authority, ad hominem, and begging the question). Some math may be hard to understand, but that doesn't make it illogical. Math couldn't exist without logic, which is nothing other than well-organized thinking.